From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Sun Mar 17 2002 - 08:29:09 MST
On Sunday, March 17, 2002 8:44 AM Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
sentience@pobox.com wrote:
> No, I'd say you've stated it pretty much correctly. Offense has so
far
> tended to run ahead of defense at extremes of technology, and an
impervious
> shield against military nanotech must not only defend against bots but
also
> against fusion weapons constructed by those bots.
Regardless of your take on offensive vs. defensive technology, there's
the question of development. If we don't develop adequate defenses,
then it's academic anyhow. In other words, it might be that if two
equal units develop nanotech and one develops the purely offensive side
of it while the other does only the defensive side, there might be a
stalemate or even defense might "win." But who is now developing
defensive nanotechnology?
I also think if I were inclined to develop offensive nanotech, I would
make weapons that could swarm and survive. A nanobot might not be able
to survive a direct hit from a high energy weapon, but what can? But
10^23 of them might be able to scatter and even just out wait any
defense. (Even if the defense gets better over time, there's no reason
to suppose that the offense, too, won't grow.)
Still, I remain optimistic about nanotechnology...
My two cents!
Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:00 MST